Madras High Court
The Director Of School Education vs Esther Santham Higher Secondary School on 31 January, 2019
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar, C.Saravanan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 31.01.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.A.(MD)Nos.1472 and 1473 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.11632 to 11634 of 2017
W.A.(MD)No.1472 of 2017
1.The Director of School Education,
(Higher Secondary School Education),
College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
C.V. Government Higher Secondary School Campus,
Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
C.V. Government Higher Secondary School Campus,
Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
4.The Government of Tamilnadu,
(Education Department)
Rep. by its Secretary,
Fort. St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
5.The Director of Government Examination,
(School Education), College Road,
Chennai – 600 006. : Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
Esther Santham Higher Secondary School,
Rep. by its Manager & Correspondent,
Pastor G. Nellaikumar,
(Founder & Managing Trustee – International Youth Fellowship in Christ),
Old.No.1/113-A, New No.1/197, Kalvillai Road,
Meignanapuram,
Tuticorin District.
http://www.judis.nic.in : Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order dated 10.04.2017 in W.P.(MD) No.9260 of 2013.
W.A.(MD)No.1473 of 2017
1.The Director of School Education,
(Higher Secondary School Education),
College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
C.V. Government Higher Secondary School Campus,
Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
C.V. Government Higher Secondary School Campus,
Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
4.The Government of Tamilnadu,
(Education Department)
Rep. by its Secretary,
Fort. St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
5.The Director of Government Examination,
(School Education), College Road,
Chennai – 600 006. : Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
Esther Santham Higher Secondary School,
Rep. by its Manager & Correspondent,
Pastor G. Nellaikumar,
(Founder & Managing Trustee – International Youth Fellowship in Christ),
Old.No.1/113-A, New No.1/197, Kalvillai Road,
Meignanapuram,
Tuticorin District. : Respondent/Writ Petitoner
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order dated 10.04.2017 in W.P.(MD) No.7392 of 2014.
For Appellants : Mrs.S.Srimathy,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.M.Joseph Thatheus Jerome
******
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.) These Writ Appeals are directed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the Writ Petitions filed by the respondent in W.P.(MD)Nos.9260 of 2013 and 7392 of 2014.
2.The respondent in this Writ Appeal filed a Writ Petition earlier in W.P.(MD)No.12577 of 2012 for issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by the Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin, dated 30.08.2012 and the consequential order passed by the District Educational Officer dated 07.09.2012 and to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to forward the application for recognition and grant of minority status to the respondent.
3.By the order impugned in the earlier Writ Petition, the second respondent therein closed the school on the objection of the Headmaster of a nearby school by name Ambrose Higher Secondary School. It was in the said circumstances, the learned Single Judge of this Court after finding that the petitioner is a Christian held that the petitioner need not get prior permission before starting the institution. Hence, the Writ Petition was disposed of with the following directions:
“(i) The impugned order for the closure of the School is set aside.
http://www.judis.nic.in (ii) The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to forward 4 the application of the petitioner for recognition and grant of minority status to the first respondent viz., the Director of School Education, within a week of receipt of a copy of this order with necessary enclosures.
(iii) Within 4 weeks of receipt of the application from the respondents 2 and 3, the first respondent shall conduct an enquiry and give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(iv) In the meantime, the proposal application of the School for permitting the students to writ the examinations shall be proceeded. If recognition is granted before the end of February, 2013, the children shall be permitted to write the examinations in the same school itself. If recognition could not be granted before the end of February, 2013, the children shall be permitted to write the examination in another nearby Higher Secondary School other than the fourth respondent School.”
4.It was thereafter, the first appellant in the appeals passed an order on 29.04.2013 refusing to grant recognition on the ground that the respondent school should be treated as a non-minority school and that therefore, the application for grant of recognition cannot be considered without prior permission from the Government. Strangely, the rejection for recognition was that the respondent had not submitted the application in the prescribed format and had not furnished certain details. Since the order passed by the Chief Educational Officer was contrary to the specific findings and observations of this Court in the earlier Writ Petition, the respondent herein challenged the order passed http://www.judis.nic.in 5 by the authority refusing to grant permission in W.P.(MD)No.9260 of 2013. The respondent has stated that they have obtained Fire Safety Certificate, Structural Stability Certificate, Sanitary Certificate and Building Licence under Public Building (Licencing) Act, 1965 as required for the purpose of getting recognition. It is further stated that the respondent also has obtained a Certificate of No Objection for grant of minority status from the State Minority Commission. It was in the said circumstances, the respondent filed another Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No. 7392 of 2014 to quash the proceedings of the fourth respondent therein namely the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Education Department, dated 11.04.2014 refusing to grant minority status on the ground that the respondent school which was started without prior permission and without recognition is not entitled to get a declaration of its minority status. In the said Writ Petition, the respondent herein also prayed for a direction to the Government of Tamil Nadu to declare the status of the respondent institution as a religious minority and educational agency entitled to the protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.
5.Both the writ petitions were allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by a common order dated 10.04.2017. Aggrieved, by the common order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have preferred the above Writ Appeals namely W.A.(MD)Nos.1472 and 1473 of 2017.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
6.It is to be noted that the main grievance expressed by the appellants for getting admission of Writ Appeals was that a positive direction has been given by the learned Single Judge to grant recognition and to declare the minority status of the respondent institution and that therefore, the order is not legally sustainable. Having regard to the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State, this Court directed the appellants to consider the issue relating to the declaration of the minority status of the respondent institution within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order dated 15.02.2018. Similarly, taking into consideration that the respondent has also submitted a comprehensive application dated 18.08.2014 with all relevant and necessary documents this Court passed an order of stay. Even in the order dated 29.04.2013 that was challenged in W.P.(MD)No.9260 of 2013, the Director of School Education, has given the following reasons for rejecting the application to grant recognition:
““1. rpWghd;ikaw;w cah;epiyg;gs;sp bjhlA;Ftjw;F mDkjp BfhUk; tpz;zg;gk;, jkpH;ehL muR jdpahh; gs;spfs; (xGA;FKiw) rl;lk; 1973 tpjpfs; 1974y; tpjp-5y; bjhptpj;Js;sgo gotk;-1A tpy; tptuA;fs; mspf;fg;gltpy;iy.
2.2012-13k; fy;tpahz;oy; gs;sp bjhlA;Ftjw;fhd tpz;zg;gk; 31.12.2011f;Fs; chpa mYtyUf;F mspf;ftpy;iy.
3.gs;spf;Fhpa epyk;, gs;spapd; bgahpy; brhe;jkhfBth/Fiwe;jJ 30 Mz;LfSf;F Fj;jif;fBfh gj;jpug; gjpt[j;Jiwapy;, gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;L, MtzA;fs; nizf;fg;gltpy;iy.
4.rpWghd;ikaw;w eph;thfj;jhy; elj;jg;gLk; gs;spahdjhy;, gs;spf;FG mikf;fg;gl;L, jPh;khdk; nizf;fg;gltpy;iy.
5.g[jpa gs;sp bjhlA;Ftjhy;, 5 fp.kP. bjhiyt[fF ; s; cs;s nju cah;/Bky;epiyg;gs;spfs; ghjpg;gilahky; nUf;f Btz;Lk; vd;gjhy;, mj;jifa http://www.judis.nic.in gs;spfspypUe;J jilapd;ikr;rhd;W bgw;W nizf;fg;gltpy;iy.7
6.rpWghd;ikaw;w gs;sp mwf;fl;lisf;Fhpa epjpahf Ugha; xU nyl;rk; 7 Mz;LfSf;F nl;L itg;ghf, tA;fpapy; Brkpf;fg;gl;L, mjw;fhd MtzA;fs; nizf;fg;gltpy;iy.
7. jdpahh; Raepjp gs;spapy; gzpg[hpa[k; Mrphpah;fSf;fhd xU khj Cjpak;, gs;spj; jiyik Mrphpah; kw;Wk; khtl;lf; fy;tp mYtyhpd; gjtpg; bgahpy;
bjhlA;fg;gl;Ls;s tA;fp nizf;fzf;fpy; Brkpf;fg;gl;L mjw;fhd MtzA;fs; nizf;fg;gltpy;iy.
8. ePjpaurh; Bf.rk;gj; mth;fspd; FG mwpf;ifapd; mog;gilapy; gs;sp eph;thfj;jhy; mspf;fg;gl Btz;oa 14 epge;jidfSf;fhd cWjpbkhHpfs; U.20/- kjpg;g[s;s Kj;jpiuj; jhspy; jl;lr;R bra;ag;gl;L, 5 gs;spf;FG cWg;gpdh;fs; ifbahg;gk; kw;Wk; 2 rhl;rpah;fspd; ifbahg;gj;Jld; jahh; bra;J nizf;fg;gltpy;iy.
9.gs;spf; fl;olg; gzpfs; KGikaile;Js;sikf;fhd, J]j;Jf;Fo, Kjd;ikf; fy;tp mYtyhpd; rhd;W fUj;JUf;fSld; nizf;fg;gltpy;iy.”
7.It is not in dispute that the respondent has constructed a school after acquiring more than five acres of land. The entire front portion of the school with the land is covered by a pucca compound wall and all the other sides of the school is fenced by laying stones and wire mess. The photographs of the class rooms and infrastructure which are not seriously disputed also shows that much care has been taken by the respondent to construct the school to satisfy the norms. A toilet has been constructed separately for girls and boys and there is no dispute with regard to the sufficiency of the toilets except pointing out few minor deficiencies. However, the reasons stated while rejecting the application are about the requirements of certain particulars and the delay in filing the application, non-production of documents of title and failure to prove formation of school committee by the educational agency by annexing the resolutions. One of the requirements was that the school has not http://www.judis.nic.in 8 obtained No Objection Certificate from the neighbouring schools which are located within five kilometers. Further, it is stated that the requirement of fixed deposit in respect of non-minority schools has not been satisfied by producing necessary documents. Despite the fact that fire safety certificate, sanitary certificate, the structural stability certificate and building licence had been produced as required under the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings Act, the application was not considered with reference to the statutory provisions. Therefore, the learned Single Judge after holding that the impugned order is wholly unsustainable, set aside the order and issued a positive direction directing the Director of School Education to grant recognition to the respondent school. Similar order passed by the State Government was also set aside and the State was directed to declare the religious minority status of the respondent within a period of six weeks from the date or receipt of a copy of the order. It is to be seen that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court by order dated 15.02.2018, the Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin, appears to have inspected the school and sent a communication to the Special Government Pleader. The communication dated 25.01.2019 shows that the Chief Educational Officer has pointed out some more deficiencies which are either minor or trivial in nature. It is to be seen that the photographs and the communication would show that the attitude of the appellant was to reject the application somehow or the other on minor discrepancies without giving any further opportunity http://www.judis.nic.in even to comply with such minor deficiencies. In the 9 photographs annexed with the communication dated 22.01.2018, that is addressed to the learned Special Government Pleader, it was reported that the entire school is surrounded by thorny bushes and Seemaikaruvel trees. It was indicated that the external atmosphere of the school is such that the students are likely to be attacked by venomous insects as if there was no protection to the students. Despite the fact that the compound wall had been constructed by the respondent in the front portion and the entire school premises had been fenced properly, it was reported by the second appellant before this Court that the school has no compound wall surrounded by it. It was further stated that no doors and windows are found in the class rooms. Similarly, deficiency was pointed out in the lab that was inspected by the second appellant. It was further stated that no CCTV cameras to monitor the safety of the students and to watch whether the students are going out from the schools or not. The reasons stated in the order clearly show the mind and attitude of the Chief Educational Officer and that he is determined to reject the application under any circumstances. One of the main reasons stated by the second appellant was that the respondent had been obtained no objection from the neighbouring school.
8.First of all, it is to be pointed out that the defects pointed out regarding the building and facilities are not true and it is evident from the subsequent communications photographs and the fact that the respondent http://www.judis.nic.in has obtained structural stability certificate as required under 10 the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings Act, 1965. Even the photographs produced by the third appellant himself would show that the deficiencies are very minor. Pursuant to an inspection on 24.01.2019, it has been resolved in the communication dated 29.01.2019, the defect pointed out earlier are not there. Earlier, it was reported that there was no CCTV camera and that there is no proper drinking water or toilet facility available in the school. Similarly, it was also stated that electricity service connection was obtained with the temporary structure and that the service connection is put in such a way that there is no safety. Similarly, since there is no backrest provided in the benches which are meant for students that was also shown as a defect. The absence of separate room for the Headmaster and staff room was indicated. It is stated that for higher secondary school, at least five thousand books are required and that there are no sufficient books available in the library. Further, it was pointed out that only five class rooms are available. It was also pointed out that before commencing any school, it should be proved that no other school is located within five kilometers from the proposed school and that the proposed school should also get No Objection Certificate from the neighbouring school, if there are any school which are located within five kilometers. A specific reference was made to the nearby school by name Ambrose Higher Secondary School and Eliot Texford Girls Higher Secondary School within half a kilometer. There was further reference to the objection raised by the Ambrose Higher http://www.judis.nic.in Secondary School. Thereafter, it was pointed out that the 11 attendance of students was poor and that the school has not satisfied the norms for grant of recognition. It is further stated that the school has not satisfied the norms prescribed in Government Order vide G.O.Ms.No.375, dated 12.10.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 03.11.2008 for the purpose of getting a declaration as to the minority status of respondent institution. Except stating that the school does not satisfy the norms required in the Government Orders, the original reason for rejecting the minority status as well as the grant of recognition has been ignored by the appellants. In these circumstances, we have no other option but to confirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Further, it is also relevant to point out another circumstance that this Court also earlier wanted the learned Special Government Pleader to get status report as to the present status and the deficiencies if any so that respondent can be directed to comply with or rectify those defects before grant of recognition. In that context, the learned Special Government Pleader produced before this Court a communication received from the District Educational Officer along with the photographs. In the later communication, the following defects have been pointed out:
“5 tFg;giwfs; kl;LBk cs;sJ. 9, 10, 12 tFg;gpdUf;F jdpj;jdp tFg;giwfs; cs;sJ. 8, 11 tFg;gf[ s; xBu fl;olj;jpYk;, 6, 7 xBu tFg;gpYk; bray;gLfpwJ. 2 tFg;gf[ Sf;F jdpj;jdp tFg;giw ny;iy.
Bky;khoapy; ifg;gpo Rth; VJk; ny;iy.””
9.We have seen the photographs produced by the appellants as well as the photographs submitted by the respondent with regard to the building http://www.judis.nic.in and the infrastructure provided by the respondent in the school. 12
We also find that the defects pointed out are minor and that there are no serious infirmities or deficiencies. It is stated in the present report that in the first floor there is no parapet wall. However, this was explained by the respondent that the students are not permitted to go to the first floor on any occasion and the stairs leading to the first floor is kept under lock and key. Similarly, it is stated that the benches that were provided to the students to sit in the class rooms have no back support. It is stated that there are no compound wall. Again deficiency in toilet was pointed out. Sufficiency of the lab and functioning of lab was now doubted in the communication. One of the important defects that was pointed out in the report is that a crack in the main wall. We find that the crack pointed out in the photograph is only a crack in the plastering and they doubting the structure stability of the building. There is a general observation in the communication which reads as follows:
“gs;spf;F Rw;Wr;Rth; ny;iy.
tpisahl;L ikjhdk; trjp ny;iy khzth;fSf;F BghJkhd fHpg;giw trjp ny;iy.
Ma;tf trjp VJk; BghJkhdjhf ny;iy. Bray;ghl;oy; ny;iy. gs;sp eilKiwf;F cfe;jjhf VJk; trjpfs; ny;iy.
tFg;giwapd; Rth;fspy; tphpry; cs;sJ.””
10.It is further observed as follows:
“1.Bkw;go gs;sp Ma;tpd;BghJ fy;tp epWtdj;jpy; gapYk; rpWghd;ik khzth;fs; tpguA;fs; VJk; Kd;dpiyg;gLj;jg;gltpy;iy.
2.fy;tp epWtdj;jpd; Behf;fk; rpWghd;ik eyDf;F gadspf;fj;jf;fjhf eilbgWfpwjh vd;gjw;F tl;lhl;rpah; rhd;W VJk; Kd;dpiyg;gLj;jtpy;iy.
3.eph;thfk; bghWg;gpy; cs;sth;fspd; bgah;/bkhHp, kjk;, Kfthp Kjypa tpguA;fs; kw;Wk; mjw;fhd tl;lhl;rpah; rhd;W Kd;dpiyg;gLj;jg;gltpy;iy.
4. 3 Mz;Lfspy; rhh;e;j mwf;fl;lis jPh;khdj;jpd; efy;
http://www.judis.nic.in Kd;dpiyg;gLj;jg;gltpy;iy. 13
5.ne;jpa murpd; cs;Jiw fl;Lg;ghl;oy; cs;s jkpH;ehL kf;fs; bjhif fzf;bfLg;g[ gzp naf;Fdh; mspf;fg;gl;l rhd;wpjH; VJk; Kd;dpiyg;gLj;jg;gltpy;iy.”
11.This Court after getting the report from the Chief Educational Officer found that it has now become a useless exercise when we directed the learned Special Government Pleader to respond to us to give the correct status report. Though we had earlier thought of appointing an Advocate Commissioner so that all these minor deficiencies even if they exist, can be rectified by the respondent in the interest of the students as well as the educational department, we find that the stand taken by the appellant in this cases regarding deficiencies is not consistent and that they are projecting this kind of minor deficiencies just to say no to the petition filed by the respondent for the grant of recognition. It is to be noted that no infraction or violation of specific statute/rule is quoted by the appellants while pointing out this minor aspects as statutory requirements for rejecting the application for grant of recognition. It is not in dispute that the respondent has constructed sufficient number of class rooms and sufficient number of toilets with sufficient facilities. It is a new building having structural stability and safety certificates. The learned Counsel for the respondent has stated that the school administration would like to discontinue class 6 and 7 and that therefore, the recognition is now required only from standards 8 to 12. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent has no sufficient class http://www.judis.nic.in rooms. With regard to the other defects pointed out, we do not 14 think that the grant of recognition should wait for the compliance of these minor deficiencies.
12.With regard to the minority status, the Government has rejected the application for declaration of the respondent's status as religious minority institution, the State has passed the order on 11.04.2014 in the following manner:
“5.ne;epiyapy;, brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w tHf;F hpl; kD vz;. WP.No.36010/2013 kPjhd 26.11.2013 ehspl;l jPh;g;ghizapd;go chpa Kiwapy; jA;fspd; 6.9.2013 kw;Wk; 7.10.2013 ehspl;l kD;ffs; murhy; Ma;t[ bra;ag;gl;ld. Murhiz (epiy) vz;.375, g;sspf; fy;tpj; Jiw, ehs;. 12.10.98-y; gs;spf;fy;tpj; Jiwapd; MSifapd; fPH;
bray;gl;LtUk; muR epjp cjtp bgWk;, epjp cjtp bgwhj rpWghd;ikapdh; elj;Jk; gs;spfis rpWghd;ik gs;sp vd mwptpf;f bewpKisfs; Vw;gLj;jg;gl;Ls;sd. njd;go xU gs;sp mA;fPfhuk; bgw;wpUe;jhy; kl;LBk mg;gs;sp gs;spf; fy;tpj;Jiwapd; MSiff;F cl;gl;ljhFk;. Mdhy; J]j;Jf;Fo khtl;lk;, bka;qhdg[uk;, v!;jh; rhe;jk; Bky;epiyg;gs;spahdJ 2012-2013;-y; Jiw Kd; mDkjpapd;wp bjhlA;fg;bgw;wJld; Muk;g mA;fPfhuk; bgwhjepiyapy; bray;gl;L tUfpwJ. ne;epiyapy; BkBy gj;jp 4-y; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;s tptuA;fspd; mog;gilapy; J]j;Jf;Fo khtl;lk;, bka;qhdg[uk;, v!;jh; rhe;jk; Bky;epiyg;gs;spf;F rpWghd;ik jFjp tHA;ff; BfhUk; jA;fspd; 6.9.13 kw;Wk; 7.10.13 ehspl;l Bfhhpf;if murhy; epuhfhpf;fg;gLfpwJ vd;gij jA;fSf;F bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpBwd;. ”“”
13.The fact that the school was established by a Christian is not in dispute. It is the appellants' stand that the respondent failed to give the particulars of the students belonged to minority and about the educational agency particularly about the members of the body which acts as the educational agency. The respondent has already given all the particulars. The appellants have not disputed the receipt of those materials and documents. From the particulars that are now made http://www.judis.nic.in available to the appellants, the learned Special Government Pleader has 15 not pointed out any single reason to reject the application of the respondent claiming declaration that the respondent as a religious minority institution. It is to be seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of N.Ammad vs. Manager, Emjay High School and others reported in (1998) 6 SCC 674 has held as follows:
“13.When the Government declared the School as a minority school it has recognised a factual position that the School was established and is being administered by a minority community. The declaration is only an open acceptance of a legal character which should necessarily have existed antecedent to such declaration. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the contention that the School can claim protection only after the Government declared it as a minority school on 02.08.1994.”
14.Similarly, right of minority has also been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments. It is relevant to refer to a judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rt. Rev. Msgr. Mark Netto v. State of Kerala and others reported in (1979) 1 SCC 23 wherein it has been held as follows:
“(3) It is true that the right conferred by Article 30 of the Constitution on religious and linguistic minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice is not an absolute right, but is subject to regulation. But the Christian community, in the instant case, for various reasons, wanted Christian girls also to receive their education in the school. They could only be prevented from doing so on valid, legal and reasonable grounds and not otherwise. The permission was refused not on the ground of any apprehended deterioration of morality or discipline but only in the interest of the existing Muslim girls school. The High Court also held that it would be better for the girls to get instructions in girls school. If the rule permits such action, then, it violates the freedom guaranteed to the minority to administer the school of its choice.
(4) The rule, therefore, must be interpreted narrowly and held to be inapplicable to a minority educational institution in a situation where the minority wants the girls belonging to that minority to receive education in their school. Hence, the impugned orders are bad and invalid and must be quashed.” http://www.judis.nic.in 15.Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sisters of 16 St. Joseph of Cluny vs. State of West Bengal and others in Civil Appeal Nos.3945 to 3950 of 2018 has held that after the introduction of National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004, it is also within the jurisdiction and mandate of the National Commission to issue the certificate regarding the status of minority educational institution. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the Commission issues a certificate, it is a declaration of an existing status.
16.It has been repeatedly held by this Court that rival schools have no locus standi to object for starting of a minority school and that the minority school need not get prior permission from the Government or Educational Department. Unfortunately, in this case recognition was refused mainly on the ground of prior permission. Similarly, the application for minority status was rejected mainly for want of recognition and other irrelevant reasons.
17.In the present case, it is not in dispute that the State Minority Commission has issued a certificate that they have no objection to issue a minority status to the respondent school. It is also to be pointed out that the learned Single Judge of this Court in the earlier Writ Petition filed by the respondent in W.P.(MD)No.12577 of 2007 has observed as follows:
“6.The fact that the petitioner is the Christian, cannot be in doubt. He http://www.judis.nic.in has started a Trust by name International Youth Fellowship in Christ. The objects of the Trust are also indicated in the affidavit in support of 17 the writ petition.
7.The law is well settled that if an educational institution is established by an Institution/Trust/Society, which is a religious minority institution, the said institution can be started without prior permission. Nevertheless, such an institution should also obtain recognition.”
18.Despite a specific order and direction has been issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition, it is noted by the learned Single Judge that the order impugned in the Writ Petition has been passed without considering the materials that were placed before the authorities and without considering the directions found in the earlier Writ Petition. Hence, the order that was passed in the Writ Petitions cannot be faulted.
19.The respondent being a minority institution need not get any prior permission under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School Regulation Act, 1973. The respondent has applied to get declaration of its status. However, that application was rejected only on the ground that the respondent had no recognition or obtained permission from the Government. Though the respondent has produced all the relevant records which would indicate that it is an institution established and administered by religious minority and there is no reason to reject the application by giving extraneous reasons, the application was dismissed. It was, therefore, the learned Judge was right in issuing a positive direction to the State earlier to declare the minority status to the respondent. Even before this Court in the counter affidavit it was not brought to the notice of this Court any infirmity in the order by pointing http://www.judis.nic.in 18 out that only for valid reason, the respondent cannot be granted religious minority status. From 2012, the respondent was made to run from pillar to post for no germane reason. This Court is able to see that at the instance of neighbouring school raising objection for the respondent establishing another school, have acted illegally with mala fide intention. Further, legal mala fide is writ large in this case, from the conduct and attitude shown against the respondent. The first and fourth appellants are directed to declare religious minority status to the respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
20.We are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge directing the first appellant to grant recognition is perfectly valid and requires no interference. However, even if there are any deficiencies or defects for the purpose of satisfying the statutory norms, it is open to the appellants to direct the respondent to rectify the same. However, for that purpose, the recognition need not be withheld further. The first appellant is directed to grant recognition to the respondent institution within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is open to the first appellant to direct the respondent to rectify any minor deficiencies which may exists and the respondent shall be given sufficient opportunity and time to comply with that before taking any further action after granting recognition as per the direction of this Court. http://www.judis.nic.in 19
21.In this case, the Chief Educational Officer and the District Educational Officer have conducted themselves in a manner unbecoming of a public servant/statutory authorities by giving false and misleading statements contrary to record. The fact that they are influenced by a neighbouring school is evident. They are not fair to the Court.
22.Since academic year is coming to close, the students who are studying S.S.L.C., Plus One and Plus Two in the respondent institution may be permitted to join in the neighbouring Government Higher Secondary School for the purpose of writing their examination this year.
22.As a result, both the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes/No (S.S.S.R.,J) (C.S.N.,J.)
Internet : No/Yes 31.01.2019
SRM
Note: Issue order copy on 20.02.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in
20
S.S.SUNDAR,J.
AND
C.SARAVANAN,J.
SRM
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)Nos.1472 and 1473 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.11632 to 11634 of 2017
31.01.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in